| Friday, July 11 2008 |
AMD Deneb is the code-name for the 45nm quad-core CPU which AMD plans to release soon. Chinese website ITOCP got their hands on two engineering samples. They used these samples at various clock-speeds set by altering the FSB multiplier and Vcore voltage. These chips were then subjected to rounds of Super Pi 1M benchmark. The results look rather luke-warm compared to what we saw of the Intel Bloomfield chips recently. The Deneb CPUs were supported by an AMD RD790 motherboard and 2 GB of DDR2 800 MHz unganged memory, running at timings of 5-5-5-18. The Phenom X4 Deneb 45nm will feature 6 MB of L3 cache apart from the usual 512 KB L2 caches dedicated to the cores.
Source: ITOCP
Source: ITOCP
User comments
Alex, I'll take the 3.4Ghz for $235!! JK. If I read that right 3.4Ghz @ almost 1.6v!! Wonder how they are cooling it. Anyways can't wait to get my grubby hands on one.
That looks a bit voltage hungry,my E6750 does 3.6ghz at 1.41v/3.2ghz at 1.35v.
my e6400 does 3.2 @ 1.225V
by: tigger69;880167Lol your's is a dual core this is a quad, mind you it does seem quite power hungry
That looks a bit voltage hungry,my E6750 does 3.6ghz at 1.41v/3.2ghz at 1.35v.
by: Judas;880198look at specs that is alot of volts :p
Lol your's is a dual core this is a quad, mind you it does seem quite power hungry
by: DOM;880204lol very funny :p
look at specs that is alot of volts :p
Denreb? :laugh:
Pre-release Tests Conducted on AMD Denreb
Those super-Pi times are pretty bad, I would be embaressed.
seems like they could have used a better system setup.... unganged memory, that is not dual channel, right? and crappy timings...
im not sure if that has much impact on superpi, but it does on everything else...
im not sure if that has much impact on superpi, but it does on everything else...
by: Basard;880227That is Dual Channel. And 5-5-5-18 isn't terrible timing for DDR2-800, in fact they are pretty standard timings.
seems like they could have used a better system setup.... unganged memory, that is not dual channel, right? and crappy timings...
im not sure if that has much impact on superpi, but it does on everything else...
unganged is best used if you are running alot of multi core apps since it will allow the Phenom to use both memory controllers. Unganged is 64-bit dual channel, ganged is 128-bit dual channel.
these are really early "results", so let's just wait and see. also it's pretty pointless to compare a dual core intel vs a quad core+IMC amd in terms of power consumption.
I got quite a jolt from looking at all those volts that the CPU needs to run. Looks like I'll be needing a new PSU.
by: newtekie1;880226I thought Super-Pi was not "multi-thread friendly"? Is there a new version that actually benefits from having more the one core in your CPU? If not, then Super-Pi is not really a good benchmark for the current multi-core CPU's.
Those super-Pi times are pretty bad, I would be embaressed.
wow... poor amd... :shadedshu
by: jydie;880248It is a guage on how a single one of those cores performs, which we can then use to get an idea on how all 4 will perform. If 1 core performs like crap, adding 3 more crappy performing cores just gives you a quad-core processor that performs like crap compared to other quad-core processors.
I thought Super-Pi was not "multi-thread friendly"? Is there a new version that actually benefits from having more the one core in your CPU? If not, then Super-Pi is not really a good benchmark for the current multi-core CPU's.
by: newtekie1;880256OK... thanks! That makes sense. As long as people realize the fact that it is only measuring one of the cores, then I can see it's use for benchmarking. So, then you should be able to run 4 Super-Pi tests at the same time on a quad-core, and they would finish MUCH faster then running 4 tests on a single core CPU... right?
It is a guage on how a single one of those cores performs, which we can then use to get an idea on how all 4 will perform. If 1 core performs like crap, adding 3 more crappy performing cores just gives you a quad-core processor that performs like crap compared to other quad-core processors.
by: newtekie1;880256
It is a guage on how a single one of those cores performs, which we can then use to get an idea on how all 4 will perform. If 1 core performs like crap, adding 3 more crappy performing cores just gives you a quad-core processor that performs like crap compared to other quad-core processors.
I don't see why you are concerned about Super PI results. Who cares about synthetic benchmarks as long as the processor performs in real world tests and is cheaper than the competition. The Q6600 would beat the 9850 BE in Super PI yet would loose in majority real world tests.
by: btarunr;880274
It's not like synthetic-benchmarks aren't indicative of real-world performance at all.
Whatever. Super PI has no baring on the results one may achieve in a game or in a spreadsheet or any other application one uses on a day to day basis.
by: phanbuey;880285
ERM.... I would LOVE to see those tests... Here's some that say the exact opposite:
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/735/1/
9850 can barely touch the Q6600 (at stock clocks), and only matches it in 2-3 tests. BTW the 9850 gets KILLED in the Excel spreadsheet tests.
The Q6600 and 9850 BE are equivalent processors, my point is that the Q6600 would win in Super PI but a huge margin yet but won't win in other benchmarks (mostly real world) by the same margin, and hence why SuperPI isn't the best indication of performance.
by: yogurt_21;880287
damn this is crazy amd needs t lose the phenom ide and move onto something better and totally redesigned. while the performance ios definetly higher than current phenoms super pi's it isn't anywhere near what current or future intel quads.
Again who cares about SuperPI as long as the CPU's perform well in the game your playing, or the application you use and the performance decent and is cheaper than the competition (Intel) that's all that matters not some silly score on some silly program.
by: tigger69;880167My E8200 does 4gig on 1.3V :D
That looks a bit voltage hungry,my E6750 does 3.6ghz at 1.41v/3.2ghz at 1.35v.
It's not like synthetic-benchmarks aren't indicative of real-world performance at all.
by: Darren;880269ERM.... I would LOVE to see those tests... Here's some that say the exact opposite:
I don't see why you are concerned about Super PI results. Who cares about synthetic benchmarks as long as the processor performs in real world tests and is cheaper than the competition. The Q6600 would beat the 9850 BE in Super PI yet would loose in majority real world tests.
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/735/1/
9850 can barely touch the Q6600 (at stock clocks), and only matches it in 2-3 tests. BTW the 9850 gets KILLED in the Excel spreadsheet tests by intel dual cores.
damn this is crazy amd needs t lose the phenom ide and move onto something better and totally redesigned. while the performance ios definetly higher than current phenoms super pi's it isn't anywhere near what current or future intel quads.
Awesome...45nm ftw.
by: jydie;880268Yes, running 4 SuperPi tests at the same time would finish much quicker on a quad than on a single core. Also, because of the shared cache, if you ran 4 SuperPi tests at the same time, the times would be slower than if you just run 1. When you run 1, that single test gets the entire cache on the processor for itself. When you run 4, they have to share the L3 cache.
OK... thanks! That makes sense. As long as people realize the fact that it is only measuring one of the cores, then I can see it's use for benchmarking. So, then you should be able to run 4 Super-Pi tests at the same time on a quad-core, and they would finish MUCH faster then running 4 tests on a single core CPU... right?
by: Darren;880269I also would like to see the tests proving the 9850 BE beating the Q6600 in the majority of realworld tests. Everything I have seen show otherwise.
I don't see why you are concerned about Super PI results. Who cares about synthetic benchmarks as long as the processor performs in real world tests and is cheaper than the competition. The Q6600 would beat the 9850 BE in Super PI yet would loose in majority real world tests.
And superpi is important because it does give an idea of processor performance. It doesn't give a well-rouned idea, it only shows a single aspect of the processors performance, but it is still important. It shows how good the processor is at pure number crunching.
by: Darren;880269In the past, SuperPi results have been very good indicators of real world performance. Can you show me proof otherwise?
Whatever. Super PI has no baring on the results one may achieve in a game or in a spreadsheet or any other application one uses on a day to day basis.
by: Darren;880269We are all waiting on these benchmarks to prove this.
The Q6600 and 9860 BE are equivalent processors, my point is that the Q6600 would win in Super PI but a huge margin yet but won't win in other benchmarks (mostly real world) by the same margin, and hence why SuperPI isn't the best indication of performance.
by: Darren;880269We care because it gives us an idea about how the processor performs.
Again who cares about SuperPI as long as the CPU's perform well in the game your playing, or the application you use and the performance decent and is cheaper than the competition (Intel) that's all that matters not some silly score on some silly program.
45nm with 1.6v! That's going to cause a lot of damage even with adequate cooling. Shouldn't really put 1.4v through a 45nm chip.
Mind you, AMD may have come up with some way of reinforcing the chip against those kind of volts, but bloody hell...
Mind you, AMD may have come up with some way of reinforcing the chip against those kind of volts, but bloody hell...
by: Darknova;880315They are only using that much voltage in the extreme overclocked shots, probably just doing it for a benchmark run. They were only using 1.4v @ 3GHz.
45nm with 1.6v! That's going to cause a lot of damage even with adequate cooling. Shouldn't really put 1.4v through a 45nm chip.
Mind you, AMD may have come up with some way of reinforcing the chip against those kind of volts, but bloody hell...
i can only say......finaly something from AMD, not much but something
Sub 20s :)
by: newtekie1;880329But even so, if it requires 1.6v to reach what on an intel platform is considering a "mild" OC then AMD are doing something wrong...
They are only using that much voltage in the extreme overclocked shots, probably just doing it for a benchmark run. They were only using 1.4v @ 3GHz.
Good thing there are a lot of people that follow AMD in this thread!:ohwell:
If you've been paying attention the last two forevers AMD's do not put up the same type of numbers as Intel processors in SuperPi so stop expecting it to put up a 10 second time because they NEVER have!
Now if you use 1% logic and 2% effort you'll go over the old SuperPi results from previous AMD processors and notice that this is a very nice improvement for these processors! My best SuperPi time to date is 24.679s in the 1M test with everything turned up as high as I can get it (3.1Ghz)...the new processor even with nothing turned up will nearly match that at only 2.8Ghz!!! That's a fantastic increase overall and I'm damn happy with it. For those wondering (and waiting to throw more mud) my setup for that test was... (all air cooling Xigmatek HDT-S1283 on low)
Phenom 9850 @ 3.1Ghz 1.37v
Patriot Extreme 1150Mhz 4-5-5-15 2T
Northbridge 2.354Ghz
HT Link 2.14Ghz
Anyway I'd love to see some other tests done with this but right now I'm sold already ESPECIALLY with the L3 6Mb cache as that'll help a lot in other apps we really needed the speed in.
On another note and without sounding terribly rude but...why do people with dual cores keep posting what clocks you can achieve on "x" voltage...nobody cares what your DUAL core can do. You quad guys on the other hand are a different story though because you actually have apples to apples going.
K
If you've been paying attention the last two forevers AMD's do not put up the same type of numbers as Intel processors in SuperPi so stop expecting it to put up a 10 second time because they NEVER have!
Now if you use 1% logic and 2% effort you'll go over the old SuperPi results from previous AMD processors and notice that this is a very nice improvement for these processors! My best SuperPi time to date is 24.679s in the 1M test with everything turned up as high as I can get it (3.1Ghz)...the new processor even with nothing turned up will nearly match that at only 2.8Ghz!!! That's a fantastic increase overall and I'm damn happy with it. For those wondering (and waiting to throw more mud) my setup for that test was... (all air cooling Xigmatek HDT-S1283 on low)
Phenom 9850 @ 3.1Ghz 1.37v
Patriot Extreme 1150Mhz 4-5-5-15 2T
Northbridge 2.354Ghz
HT Link 2.14Ghz
Anyway I'd love to see some other tests done with this but right now I'm sold already ESPECIALLY with the L3 6Mb cache as that'll help a lot in other apps we really needed the speed in.
On another note and without sounding terribly rude but...why do people with dual cores keep posting what clocks you can achieve on "x" voltage...nobody cares what your DUAL core can do. You quad guys on the other hand are a different story though because you actually have apples to apples going.
K
by: newtekie1;880310
And superpi is important because it does give an idea of processor performance. It doesn't give a well-rouned idea, it only shows a single aspect of the processors performance, but it is still important. It shows how good the processor is at pure number crunching.
But who cares about pure number crunching if the processor costs a arm and a leg. I would rather sacrifice a encoding a video 5 seconds slower if it means I pay £50 less. Honestly are you going to care if your application launches a nanosecond faster or if you get 150 FPS in a game opposed to 149.9 seconds if you can't afford the extra £ required or for a better Super PI result which didn't have any baring in the applications you really use everyday.
by: newtekie1;880310
In the past, SuperPi results have been very good indicators of real world performance. Can you show me proof otherwise?
We are all waiting on these benchmarks to prove this.
Well according to the article phanbuey sent earlier, despite most of the benchmarks being synthetical the 9850 BE was still performing equivalently, in some benchmarks better in some worst, in some just trailing behind. If you were to measure the two CPU's using SuperPI it would show a huge gap between the two CPU's in favour of the Q6600 maybe 10 seconds between? in most tests according to phanbuey's article the performance difference wasn't abnormally different, which completely contradicts the readings Super PI would of gave.
by: pagalms;880338
Sub 20s :)
That shut people up. lol
Oh, and those tests were done with plain jane timings and nothing else was overclocked. Also the ram was very clearly in single channel/unganged mode for these tests (which are not multicore so we know how that affects ganged/unganged). My mouth is watering already to see what they can do when the rest of the system is turned up even a little bit.
K
K
by: Kei;880343if that is true, than this CPU is not bad at all ;)
Good thing there are a lot of people that follow AMD in this thread!:ohwell:
If you've been paying attention the last two forevers AMD's do not put up the same type of numbers as Intel processors in SuperPi so stop expecting it to put up a 10 second time because they NEVER have!
Now if you use 1% logic and 2% effort you'll go over the old SuperPi results from previous AMD processors and notice that this is a very nice improvement for these processors! My best SuperPi time to date is 24.679s in the 1M test with everything turned up as high as I can get it (3.1Ghz)...the new processor even with nothing turned up will nearly match that at only 2.8Ghz!!! That's a fantastic increase overall and I'm damn happy with it. For those wondering (and waiting to throw more mud) my setup for that test was... (all air cooling Xigmatek HDT-S1283 on low)
Phenom 9850 @ 3.1Ghz 1.37v
Patriot Extreme 1150Mhz 4-5-5-15 2T
Northbridge 2.354Ghz
HT Link 2.14Ghz
Anyway I'd love to see some other tests done with this but right now I'm sold already ESPECIALLY with the L3 6Mb cache as that'll help a lot in other apps we really needed the speed in.
On another note and without sounding terribly rude but...why do people with dual cores keep posting what clocks you can achieve on "x" voltage...nobody cares what your DUAL core can do. You quad guys on the other hand are a different story though because you actually have apples to apples going.
K
by: Darren;880345Darren don't argue with them about number crunching ability...if they were really concerned and wanted the best in number crunching then they wouldn't be cheap @sses and would buy the fastest processor in the first place not the cheap one they heard could be overclocked to be fast. They're simply here to throw dirt and that is all...I don't see any AMD guys over in the new Intel thread doing that, as a matter of fact I remember praising the new Intel processor (the 2.66Ghz one not a fan of the 2.93Ghz model).
But who cares about pure number crunching if the processor costs a arm and a leg. I would rather sacrifice a encoding a video 5 seconds slower if it means I pay £50 less. Honestly are you going to care if your application launches a nanosecond faster or if you get 150 FPS in a game opposed to 149.9 seconds if you can't afford the extra £ required or for a better Super PI result which didn't have any baring in the applications you really use everyday.
Well according to the article phanbuey sent earlier, despite most of the benchmarks being synthetical the 9850 BE was still performing equivalently, in some benchmarks better in some worst, in some just trailing behind. If you were to measure the two CPU's using SuperPI it would show a huge gap between the two CPU's in favour of the Q6600 maybe 10 seconds between? in most tests according to phanbuey's article the performance difference wasn't abnormally different, which completely contradicts the readings Super PI would of gave.
That shut people up. lol
I'm done let the kids have their fun...your turn
K
by: [I.R.A]_FBi;880196my E7200 does 4 GHz @ 1.25v...and your point?
my e6400 does 3.2 @ 1.225V
I hope AMD has some headroom for overclocking. The small performance gain is nice, but we still need more if AMD is going to try to compete with Intel.
by: Kei;880343Yeah, but don't let the Intel fanbois hear ya ;)
Good thing there are a lot of people that follow AMD in this thread!:ohwell:
If you've been paying attention the last two forevers AMD's do not put up the same type of numbers as Intel processors in SuperPi so stop expecting it to put up a 10 second time because they NEVER have!
Now if you use 1% logic and 2% effort you'll go over the old SuperPi results from previous AMD processors and notice that this is a very nice improvement for these processors! My best SuperPi time to date is 24.679s in the 1M test with everything turned up as high as I can get it (3.1Ghz)...the new processor even with nothing turned up will nearly match that at only 2.8Ghz!!! That's a fantastic increase overall and I'm damn happy with it. For those wondering (and waiting to throw more mud) my setup for that test was... (all air cooling Xigmatek HDT-S1283 on low)
Phenom 9850 @ 3.1Ghz 1.37v
Patriot Extreme 1150Mhz 4-5-5-15 2T
Northbridge 2.354Ghz
HT Link 2.14Ghz
Anyway I'd love to see some other tests done with this but right now I'm sold already ESPECIALLY with the L3 6Mb cache as that'll help a lot in other apps we really needed the speed in.
On another note and without sounding terribly rude but...why do people with dual cores keep posting what clocks you can achieve on "x" voltage...nobody cares what your DUAL core can do. You quad guys on the other hand are a different story though because you actually have apples to apples going.
K
My old Venice 3000 at 2.6Ghz and OC'd RAM did 18 seconds in SuperPi, I was happy with that lol.
and my phenom does 4.5GHz at 1.225V :)
by: vojc;880356I'm trying to find a shot of my setup with the 1M SuperPi time on the screen but can't find it only the 32M test. Either way I'll put up the SuperPi results (full list) and the lowest I can do 3Ghz at...for relevancy that's FOUR cores running 3Ghz with a stability test to prove it at only 1.232v
if that is true, than this CPU is not bad at all ;)
Just because a processor comes at a certain speed doesn't mean that's literally what it took for anybody to get that speed. systems differ..my low voltage thread pretty much proves that completely. I can boot 3Ghz as low as 1.20v on all four cores but it takes a small bump to get it stable. Btw, I wish they used a different 790 board I'm not a fan of the MSI FX board at all...the bios doesn't have nearly enough options for the Phenom.
K
by: breakfromyou;880365You've seen a single test and fail to put that into perspective...the Phenoms now are significantly slower than the new models shown here. Those same current Phenoms are competition for Intel today perhaps not the exact speed of some of the Intels but far far far from slow.
my E7200 does 4 GHz @ 1.25v...and your point?
I hope AMD has some headroom for overclocking. The small performance gain is nice, but we still need more if AMD is going to try to compete with Intel.
Homework assignment for you: Define the word "competition"...then define the word "we"
Forgive me if it seems as thoguh I'm slinging mud at you; just saying choose your words more carefully and check as many facts as you can first. :)
by: Darknova;880366Dayumn! That's really fast! :toast:
My old Venice 3000 at 2.6Ghz and OC'd RAM did 18 seconds in SuperPi, I was happy with that lol.
Why can't all Intel guys and AMD guys get along like this...in the end we're all computer people.:shadedshu
K
by: Tatty_One;880273My E3110 Xeon (E8400) does 4Ghz at 1.4125V :cry: (24/7 stable)
My E8200 does 4gig on 1.3V :D
You got an awesome chip. :eek:
my next will be 45nm deneb
hey they just about hit 3.5ghz on SB600 thats not something to insult remember the SB750 boards are supposed to be alot better oc'rs
and just to ask WHEN HAS AMD BEEN GOOD AT sp? what i'm seeing is they are doing alot better clock for clock and th scaling looks very good on these chips
and just to ask WHEN HAS AMD BEEN GOOD AT sp? what i'm seeing is they are doing alot better clock for clock and th scaling looks very good on these chips
My dog does 360° in 1,2s :)
by: Kei;880393Heheh, I'm going back to AMD at some point, probably around Xmas time. I'm not getting stuck with Intel and their constant socket changes.
Dayumn! That's really fast! :toast:
Why can't all Intel guys and AMD guys get along like this...in the end we're all computer people.:shadedshu
My old AMD BSODs in 34 seconds. :laugh:
Intel fanboys......???
To be a fanboy you would buy a sub par product over a better one just because of your brand preference. Thats a fanboy..... an AMD fanboy.;) Some AMD's are a good price but there quads are not if you like to OC.
Buying a Pentium D over a AMD X2 would be a fanboy thing to do. (when they were in the competition)
I just pointed that out because somebody felt the need to call Intel purchasers, fanboys. :shadedshu
The AMD dual core processors are still pretty awesome in their Black editions. When will Intel get those awesome Multi's. :(
I am glad there are people out there willing to buy AMD processors because if they didn't, we all know Intel would charge us whatever they pleased due to lack of competition. Although I would like to see AMD step it up in the Quad department more than what we have just seen. Mainly because I don't think Intel is really feeling the heat from AMD, despite the high voltages in those benches.:)
Intel fanboys......???
To be a fanboy you would buy a sub par product over a better one just because of your brand preference. Thats a fanboy..... an AMD fanboy.;) Some AMD's are a good price but there quads are not if you like to OC.
Buying a Pentium D over a AMD X2 would be a fanboy thing to do. (when they were in the competition)
I just pointed that out because somebody felt the need to call Intel purchasers, fanboys. :shadedshu
The AMD dual core processors are still pretty awesome in their Black editions. When will Intel get those awesome Multi's. :(
I am glad there are people out there willing to buy AMD processors because if they didn't, we all know Intel would charge us whatever they pleased due to lack of competition. Although I would like to see AMD step it up in the Quad department more than what we have just seen. Mainly because I don't think Intel is really feeling the heat from AMD, despite the high voltages in those benches.:)
by: pagalms;880414:eek: I need to upgrade my dog!:twitch:
My dog does 360° in 1,2s :)
K
although everyone is wanting to speculate on this CPUs performance based on OCs . . .
I think that's rather absurd - what I see here is an AMD CPU that appears that it will perform more on par with some of Intel's quads . . . that right there is enough for many OE companies to start designing systems . . . and if AMD prices it low enough to be pricer:performance competitive, for both consumers and OEMs, this CPU definitley comes across as being able to help AMD start getting their foot back through the door.
And this is still just an engineering sample - not a finished product, yet.
I think that's rather absurd - what I see here is an AMD CPU that appears that it will perform more on par with some of Intel's quads . . . that right there is enough for many OE companies to start designing systems . . . and if AMD prices it low enough to be pricer:performance competitive, for both consumers and OEMs, this CPU definitley comes across as being able to help AMD start getting their foot back through the door.
And this is still just an engineering sample - not a finished product, yet.
by: Kei;880427Why not OC the dog? Use the 'herbal' method. :)
:eek: I need to upgrade my dog!:twitch:
K
We must be happy that these Denreb parts are overclocking well. They took a 2.3 GHz to almost 3.5 GHz alebit unlocked multipler and voltage.
by: DaedalusHelios;880425A fanboy is someone who feverently believes that they chosen company is better than the others even if the other company has been proven to be better in certain things, or overall.
My old AMD BSODs in 34 seconds. :laugh:
Intel fanboys......???
To be a fanboy you would buy a sub par product over a better one just because of your brand preference. Thats a fanboy..... an AMD fanboy.;)
I just pointed that out because somebody felt the need to call Intel purchasers, fanboys. :shadedshu
The AMD dual core processors are still pretty awesome in their Black editions. When will Intel get those awesome Multi's. :(
I am glad there are people out there willing to buy AMD processors because if they didn't, we all know Intel would charge us whatever they pleased due to lack of competition. Although I would like to see AMD step it up in the Quad department more than what we have just seen. Mainly because I don't think Intel is really feeling the heat from AMD, despite the high voltages in those benches.:)
There are still Intel fanboys who believe that you can't get better than Intel, and in raw performance they aren't half right, but having used Intel for over 18 months now as impressed with the raw performance and incredibly high benches, I'm looking for something more stable that will last me longer (IE no socket changes or being forced to change motherboard to use the latest tech).
by: DaedalusHelios;880410u all forget something, we talk abaut 4 cores here, not 2 cores, tell me how many q6600 or q9*** can work on 4ghz at 1.25V? :) my q6600 need 1.475 for 3.2-3.4GHz
My E3110 Xeon (E8400) does 4Ghz at 1.4125V :cry: (24/7 stable)
You got an awesome chip. :eek:
by: vojc;880437Q6600 is 65nm. Not 45nm.
u all forget something, we talk abaut 4 cores here, not 2 cores, tell me how many q6600 or q9*** can work on 4ghz at 1.25V? :) my q6600 need 1.475 for 3.2-3.4GHz
by: DaedalusHelios;880425A Phenom at the same clocks as the dual core AMD chips is significantly faster. I run my Phenom in X2 mode majority of the time as I don't need the power all day and I am VERY much faster than any of the Athlon 64 X2 chips at the same speed. As long as we can get the same clocks the Phenom is much faster...in order to equal the Phenom in speed the Athlons need to be clocked significantly higher, so in a round about way you just complimented the Phenom and we thank you haha.
The AMD dual core processors are still pretty awesome in their Black editions. When will Intel get those awesome Multi's. :(
K
by: Darknova;880436They are behind in game benches..... thats not synthetic... thats real performance.:laugh:
A fanboy is someone who feverently believes that they chosen company is better than the others even if the other company has been proven to be better in certain things, or overall.
There are still Intel fanboys who believe that you can't get better than Intel, and in raw performance they aren't half right, but having used Intel for over 18 months now as impressed with the raw performance and incredibly high benches, I'm looking for something more stable that will last me longer (IE no socket changes or being forced to change motherboard to use the latest tech).
Pentium D was crap. Early Phenoms were crap. You win some, you lose some. I just find it funny when people dodge the facts.
That was the biggest thing I noticed, the oc potential. Its a hell of a lot more than the current phenoms, even their black editions. I also like the 6mb of l3 cache, much needed for them. @45nm this engineering sample is a tad bit higher on volts than Id like, but most AMD chips have higher than normal voltages compared with Intel. This is the first step, I foresee alot more chips with better potential from AMD.
Also, SuperPI was never AMDs strong point. the p4 vs a64 shows that.
Also, SuperPI was never AMDs strong point. the p4 vs a64 shows that.
by: Kei;880440So you would pay the price for a quad, and have to compare it to the same companies old tech, to make it look good, rather than compare it to the opposing companies product line?
A Phenom at the same clocks as the dual core AMD chips is significantly faster. I run my Phenom in X2 mode majority of the time as I don't need the power all day and I am VERY much faster than any of the Athlon 64 X2 chips at the same speed. As long as we can get the same clocks the Phenom is much faster...in order to equal the Phenom in speed the Athlons need to be clocked significantly higher, so in a round about way you just complimented the Phenom and we thank you haha.
K
~Largest run-on sentence in the world^^^^
Good god that thing is making me want to wait for a release date instead of going Phenom 8750 and ocing in a 780 based mATX board!
Good old AMD, how much would the intel fanbois be paying for their "quad" cores without AMD nipping at their heals and giving us all superb value for money? :confused:
I've got an old 2500 XP-M that takes more than 1.65V to touch 2.3GHz and these new beasts are hitting 3.4GHz with four cores? It's insane I tells ya! :respect:
Good old AMD, how much would the intel fanbois be paying for their "quad" cores without AMD nipping at their heals and giving us all superb value for money? :confused:
I've got an old 2500 XP-M that takes more than 1.65V to touch 2.3GHz and these new beasts are hitting 3.4GHz with four cores? It's insane I tells ya! :respect:
by: DaedalusHelios;880447i have an early phenom i wouldn't call 2.8ghz crap ;)
They are behind in game benches..... thats not synthetic... thats real performance.:laugh:
Pentium D was crap. Early Phenoms were crap. You win some, you lose some. I just find it funny when people dodge the facts.
by: cdawall;880462My main reasoning was the errata.:)
i have an early phenom i wouldn't call 2.8ghz crap ;)
PS You could make whatever processor you picked up clock well. You aren't scared of frying anything. You bought a Celeron just to murder it. That phenom better do what you want it to, or you will decide to murder it and grab another. Its a massacre!
Ill be finally upgrading to quadcore when these 45nm phenoms come out.
The performance is more than good :)
Most important though remember the prices are of the CPUs you compare it to, along with the cost of the mainboard, both which AMD is usually cheaper then intel comparing the same performance.
I think its wrong to compare the best intel has to the best AMD has but neglecting the price difference, but sadly many look at who has the best performing CPU and than go down the list of what CPU they can actually afford.
Im not a die hard fanboy but i do prefer AMD, i had their CPUs since 1994, they made it even possible for me to afford a PC back then, they always had good price/performance even when they wrecked the competition with their athlon 64s, which cant be said of Intel.
Also even if the fastest AMD is half the speed of the best intel, games dont require quadcores or that kind of performance, so its not an issue for me at all either.
Glad to see they are back on track, ill get it along with a new mobo and a 4870 end of the year.
The performance is more than good :)
Most important though remember the prices are of the CPUs you compare it to, along with the cost of the mainboard, both which AMD is usually cheaper then intel comparing the same performance.
I think its wrong to compare the best intel has to the best AMD has but neglecting the price difference, but sadly many look at who has the best performing CPU and than go down the list of what CPU they can actually afford.
Im not a die hard fanboy but i do prefer AMD, i had their CPUs since 1994, they made it even possible for me to afford a PC back then, they always had good price/performance even when they wrecked the competition with their athlon 64s, which cant be said of Intel.
Also even if the fastest AMD is half the speed of the best intel, games dont require quadcores or that kind of performance, so its not an issue for me at all either.
Glad to see they are back on track, ill get it along with a new mobo and a 4870 end of the year.
Phenoms are solid processors. They are not huge overclockers and we all know that. When they were first released they were the much cheaper quad core option. If your not an overclocker or your a content builder its a good choice. I'm pretty satisfied with mine. Crysis performs much better on it then people give it credit for. With my CrossFired 3870 setup I get 35fps in HIGH at 1680x1050, this is at 2.3GHz. Thats not bad at all. I've seen people with the same GPU setup with a Q6600 at 3.4-3.6GHz get the same fps. So that shows you that the Phenom is not bad in ALL AREA's.
I really hope AMD has a lot more work planned for these : ( They don't look BAD but they need something impressive at this point. Decent and price point will only take them so far . . .
Common AMD give us something to look forward to!
Fanboy note AMD/Nvidia, I want something good to come from AMD
Common AMD give us something to look forward to!
Fanboy note AMD/Nvidia, I want something good to come from AMD
It's not too bad, it's a reasonable release. It may not out-perform the Intel current 45nm Quad-core, but It'll probabaly have a really attractive prices. And all the current users who have AM2 motherboard still can use this CPU.
by: DaedalusHelios;880464meh TLB fix is off and i have yet to have an issue however no idea what you mean i have yet to kill a chip :rolleyes:
My main reasoning was the errata.:)
PS You could make whatever processor you picked up clock well. You aren't scared of frying anything. You bought a Celeron just to murder it. That phenom better do what you want it to, or you will decide to murder it and grab another. Its a massacre!
i just have no problem cranking volts through things everyone i see is a pansy and gets scared with the smallest increase lol no problem with 2v through my 5000BE if it lets me hit the WR on it
This is quite good news, considering how much better the CPUs are supposed to overclock with AMD's upcoming SB750 southbridge.
Deneb + 790GX + SB750 + HD4700x2 would be a sweet system!
Deneb + 790GX + SB750 + HD4700x2 would be a sweet system!
by: Darren;880345A processor doesn't have to cost an arm and a leg to crunch number or to outperform this processor. A Q6600 is sub-$200 and crunches numbers like crazy.
But who cares about pure number crunching if the processor costs a arm and a leg. I would rather sacrifice a encoding a video 5 seconds slower if it means I pay £50 less. Honestly are you going to care if your application launches a nanosecond faster or if you get 150 FPS in a game opposed to 149.9 seconds if you can't afford the extra £ required or for a better Super PI result which didn't have any baring in the applications you really use everyday.
Where you looking at the same benchmarkes I was? Most of them were not synthetic, or at least as non-synthetic as a benchark can get. They were testing real work applications. Just because they weren't games, doesn't mean they aren't real world. The world consists of a lot more than games.
Well according to the article phanbuey sent earlier, despite most of the benchmarks being synthetical the 9850 BE was still performing equivalently, in some benchmarks better in some worst, in some just trailing behind. If you were to measure the two CPU's using SuperPI it would show a huge gap between the two CPU's in favour of the Q6600 maybe 10 seconds between? in most tests according to phanbuey's article the performance difference wasn't abnormally different, which completely contradicts the readings Super PI would of gave.
ProShow is a real world application, and the Q6600 destroys the 9850. Sony Vega is a real world application and the Q6600 beats the 9850 again. Excel is a real world application, and again the Q6600 hands the 9850 it's ass. Cinebench is a benchmark program based on a real world 3D Modeling app, essentially what a time demo would be to a game, and this is the only real world benchmark the 9850 managed to equal the Q6600 in one of the two tests. POV is another real world app, and the Q6600 beats even the 9950 in one of the tests, and just barely loses to the 9850 in the other.
I agree, that measuring the two with SuperPi doesn't give the whole picture, but it does give part of the picture. SuperPi cores are no where near the end all and be all of tests, but to a lot of poeple they are important. Different processors are always going to be better at different things.
Right now, all we have to go on is SuperPi times. As more details emerge, we will get a better idea of the performance of these processor. But for right now, all we have to go on are the SuperPi times, and they suck. Yes, they are better than the previous AMD processors, but saying they are better than the worst* isn't really saying much is it?
*I'm not saying AMD processors are the worst, I'm just saying they have the worst SuperPi times.
Nice to see some earlier tests on Deneb, it will be my next CPU to replace the B2.
Nice work AMD, now put them out.:nutkick:
:p
Nice work AMD, now put them out.:nutkick:
:p
I'm happy that AMD will release 45 nm Quad ;)
Hope can get this when I have money
Hope can get this when I have money
by: newtekie1;880226Remember a couple of things. SuperPi is hungry for Cache which AMD processors lack in comparison to Intel. The Intel CPUs will always get better SuperPi results regardless of speed.
Those super-Pi times are pretty bad, I would be embaressed.
To get these types of SuperPi results with an Athlon X2 or other processor you'd need to OC to some CRAZY high speeds with LN2. My X2 3800+ @ 3GHz w/ 1000MHz memory was only getting 30s from superpi. So 23s at 3GHz is a free 7s drop which will mean nicer gaming performance.
The 3rd thing to remember is that SuperPi is not the only benchmark. There are other bunchmarks which are important to take into account. Maybe the new Phenoms are bad at SuperPi but they a ton faster at other important real world tests?
So far I like what I am seeing. Might have to dust off my 790FX-DQ6 later and get one for a test bed.
-robodude666
by: newtekie1;880256Yes, still they could run 4 instances of superpi at the same time, each in their respective core.
It is a guage on how a single one of those cores performs, which we can then use to get an idea on how all 4 will perform. If 1 core performs like crap, adding 3 more crappy performing cores just gives you a quad-core processor that performs like crap compared to other quad-core processors.
by: Kei;880343I agree completely but if you look at it from a slightly different perspective then....well, I will leave you to decide, I had one peach of a single core Athlon 4000+ San Diego chip about 20 months ago and got it to about 3.2gig which at the time I think got me the top AMD superPI score in these forums, thing is, even today, a 2008 AMD chip running superPI at 3.2gig will not post a time greatly faster, why, because the basic architecture, instruction set and to some degree ...efficiency in AMD's chips has not moved forward at any real pace, now if you go back those same months, see what time in superPI a 3gig P4 chip was posting, compare that with a wolfdale at 3gig and their is a VAST difference because Intel has made HUGE leaps in technology, architecture and efficiency.
Good thing there are a lot of people that follow AMD in this thread!:ohwell:
If you've been paying attention the last two forevers AMD's do not put up the same type of numbers as Intel processors in SuperPi so stop expecting it to put up a 10 second time because they NEVER have!
Now if you use 1% logic and 2% effort you'll go over the old SuperPi results from previous AMD processors and notice that this is a very nice improvement for these processors! My best SuperPi time to date is 24.679s in the 1M test with everything turned up as high as I can get it (3.1Ghz)...the new processor even with nothing turned up will nearly match that at only 2.8Ghz!!! That's a fantastic increase overall and I'm damn happy with it. For those wondering (and waiting to throw more mud) my setup for that test was... (all air cooling Xigmatek HDT-S1283 on low)
Phenom 9850 @ 3.1Ghz 1.37v
Patriot Extreme 1150Mhz 4-5-5-15 2T
Northbridge 2.354Ghz
HT Link 2.14Ghz
Anyway I'd love to see some other tests done with this but right now I'm sold already ESPECIALLY with the L3 6Mb cache as that'll help a lot in other apps we really needed the speed in.
On another note and without sounding terribly rude but...why do people with dual cores keep posting what clocks you can achieve on "x" voltage...nobody cares what your DUAL core can do. You quad guys on the other hand are a different story though because you actually have apples to apples going.
K
Dont get me wrong, I am not a fan of artificial benchmarks and I am a fan of AMD and always will be, I was brought up on them, where superPI does work though.....is in identifying those performance hike's by making realistic comparisons between architectural changes.
hmmmm....well intel did two steps backwards on c2d CPUs (FSB )
so that why pentium 3 was faster than P4 on same clock C2D is mor like P3 in general, ok they have sse3,4......
so that why pentium 3 was faster than P4 on same clock C2D is mor like P3 in general, ok they have sse3,4......
wtf did I just get lumped in as an intel fanboy? wow, that's a stretch. just because my system has an intel cpu doens't mean i wouldn't jump back over to amd at the first sign of good performance. the problem is that no phenom out now or about ot be relerased can best my current cpu. so I keep the intel.
it's funny that the term fanboy has been thrown about so easily because my last intel before this one (in my primary rig) was a pentium 2 since then it's been nothing but amd's till the q6700. I went from pentium 2 to a duron 600, to an athlon t-bird 950MHZ, to a 1.4GHZ athlon t-bird, to an athlon xp 2000, to an athlon xp 2500 barton, to an athlon xp 2600m, to an athlon 64 3500 newcastle, to a 4000 sandiego, to an fx-62. then finally the q6700.
I've followed amd in both good times and bad and this has to be the longest period I've seen them not be competitive. the k-6's flopped but they resurrected themselves one year later with the Athlon, the most successful period in amd's history. (yes revenue and stocks were higher than the athlon 64 empire) the athlon 64x2's became dated and amd decided to launch the phenom, now more than 2 years later and still no competitve cpu.
fanboyism is one thing, but seriously I need some proof that amd is doing more than just play around and highlight ati. I need the k7 day amd back. ability to offer a product cheap that beats intel in gaming but loses in multimedia. (as with modern gpu's, lack of multimedia performance can be offloaded by the gpu)
I'm not saying I'm taking this as the definitive performance os the new phenoms, I'm just saying that I think amd needs to move on past the phenoms and make something better, the k6's were set for a 2 year run, amd cut that off and intro'd the k7 early to stay competitive. they need to do the same here.
it's funny that the term fanboy has been thrown about so easily because my last intel before this one (in my primary rig) was a pentium 2 since then it's been nothing but amd's till the q6700. I went from pentium 2 to a duron 600, to an athlon t-bird 950MHZ, to a 1.4GHZ athlon t-bird, to an athlon xp 2000, to an athlon xp 2500 barton, to an athlon xp 2600m, to an athlon 64 3500 newcastle, to a 4000 sandiego, to an fx-62. then finally the q6700.
I've followed amd in both good times and bad and this has to be the longest period I've seen them not be competitive. the k-6's flopped but they resurrected themselves one year later with the Athlon, the most successful period in amd's history. (yes revenue and stocks were higher than the athlon 64 empire) the athlon 64x2's became dated and amd decided to launch the phenom, now more than 2 years later and still no competitve cpu.
fanboyism is one thing, but seriously I need some proof that amd is doing more than just play around and highlight ati. I need the k7 day amd back. ability to offer a product cheap that beats intel in gaming but loses in multimedia. (as with modern gpu's, lack of multimedia performance can be offloaded by the gpu)
I'm not saying I'm taking this as the definitive performance os the new phenoms, I'm just saying that I think amd needs to move on past the phenoms and make something better, the k6's were set for a 2 year run, amd cut that off and intro'd the k7 early to stay competitive. they need to do the same here.
by: Kei;880440I agree. I'm an owner of both an Athlon 64 X2 and Phenom X4, both systems are 2.2Ghz.
A Phenom at the same clocks as the dual core AMD chips is significantly faster. I run my Phenom in X2 mode majority of the time as I don't need the power all day and I am VERY much faster than any of the Athlon 64 X2 chips at the same speed. As long as we can get the same clocks the Phenom is much faster...in order to equal the Phenom in speed the Athlons need to be clocked significantly higher, so in a round about way you just complimented the Phenom and we thank you haha.
K
I work in video encoding and even in 2 cores, the Phenom is faster, so worth the upgrade on the cheap.
TMPGEnc 5000 frames Xvid file (virtual dub as frameserver)
Athlon X2 4200 2.2Ghz:
1 threads...133s
2 threads...71s
Phenom X4 9550 2.2Ghz:
1 threads...108s
2 threads...55s
3 threads...50s
4 threads...50s
Phenom X4 9550 2.2Ghz
2 instances of TMPGEnc (+2 instances of Virtual dub server):
1 threads...207s
2 threads...106s
3 threads...79s
4 threads...59s
Agreed the problem is very simple though if you compare overall designs you end up with something scary and it makes sense.
The AThlon 64 is an Athlon K7 class chip at its heart, it has 64bit interngers and an IMC but at its roots its a K7, but thats not to bad honestly.
Core2 Duo at its heart is actully a pentium Pro, its P6 based design tweaked.
Now we all say the last major P6 design lost to AMD i correct you, AMD K7 lost to Coppermine in every gaming test or multimedia test, why did they well so well, well because the coppermine launched behind sechudle and topped out at 1ghz as the 1.13 was unstable and by the time the P3 was fixed the P4 was out and the AThlon XP was months away. But P6 was always stronger than K7 thats where Intel got them, AMD has to go back to thinking like they did then, how to undercut intel how to sell say a 3ghz chip for 50% less than intel ect
The AThlon 64 is an Athlon K7 class chip at its heart, it has 64bit interngers and an IMC but at its roots its a K7, but thats not to bad honestly.
Core2 Duo at its heart is actully a pentium Pro, its P6 based design tweaked.
Now we all say the last major P6 design lost to AMD i correct you, AMD K7 lost to Coppermine in every gaming test or multimedia test, why did they well so well, well because the coppermine launched behind sechudle and topped out at 1ghz as the 1.13 was unstable and by the time the P3 was fixed the P4 was out and the AThlon XP was months away. But P6 was always stronger than K7 thats where Intel got them, AMD has to go back to thinking like they did then, how to undercut intel how to sell say a 3ghz chip for 50% less than intel ect
Socket 775 (aka Socket T) was released in 2004.
Socket AM2 was released in 2006.
So Darknova, please stop your whining about Intel's "constant socket changes", it just shows how much of an AMD fanboy you really are.
Back on topic, this is what I want to see from AMD. I'm not expecting them to take the performance crown anytime soon, but if they can bring much improved performance to the table and continue to undercut Intel's prices, they should see good adoption of the Denebs.
Socket AM2 was released in 2006.
So Darknova, please stop your whining about Intel's "constant socket changes", it just shows how much of an AMD fanboy you really are.
Back on topic, this is what I want to see from AMD. I'm not expecting them to take the performance crown anytime soon, but if they can bring much improved performance to the table and continue to undercut Intel's prices, they should see good adoption of the Denebs.
One positive I can tell you from Intel regaining the performance crown a year and a half ago, AMD no longer is really selling mainstream CPUs at $1000. I am so grateful for that. I couldnt afford to build or piece together a pc a few years back with the price wars going on. Hell at least a decent system at that. However, Today, I have affordability and some top notch AMD procs to choose from. Or I can go dark side and get a nice Intel monster. That I am thankful for.
I dont need AMD to be King Dingaling in the procs. I need them to be competitive and offer price/performance. If you ask me, I believe they have done that. I dont need the fastest, hell most of the world dont need the fastest. If you need AMD to make a proc to kill an intel proc, you seriously have issues. If you are happy with what you got, terrific I applaud you. Im going to stay in AMD and I plan to move to either a 9850 BE or a 9950 (or one of these 45nm Quads when they are released if priced right).
I dont need AMD to be King Dingaling in the procs. I need them to be competitive and offer price/performance. If you ask me, I believe they have done that. I dont need the fastest, hell most of the world dont need the fastest. If you need AMD to make a proc to kill an intel proc, you seriously have issues. If you are happy with what you got, terrific I applaud you. Im going to stay in AMD and I plan to move to either a 9850 BE or a 9950 (or one of these 45nm Quads when they are released if priced right).
by: Assimilator;880809
Socket 775 (aka Socket T) was released in 2004.
Socket AM2 was released in 2006.
So Darknova, please stop your whining about Intel's "constant socket changes", it just shows how much of an AMD fanboy you really are.
Back on topic, this is what I want to see from AMD. I'm not expecting them to take the performance crown anytime soon, but if they can bring much improved performance to the table and continue to undercut Intel's prices, they should see good adoption of the Denebs.
OK, let's try to put a C2D CPU into a Socket 775 board which made between 2004 and 2006. It won't work thanks to Intel's "customer friendly" marketing strategy. :rolleyes:
Folks,
Let's try to keep things in perspective.
K8 and K10 (and apparently K10.5) don't do particularly well in SuperPi, when compared to Conroe/Kentsfield or Wolfdale/Yorkfield. This is perhaps the worst possible way to compare the Green and Blue teams.
For example, it only takes a Wolfdale/Yorkfield operating at 2.40 GHz to achieve 1M SuperPi in approximately 20 seconds and it takes a Deneb @ 3.44 GHz to achieve the same time. A Deneb @ 3.44 GHz would decimate a Wolfdale/Yorkfield @ 2.40 GHz in virtually every single benchmark or application (other than SuperPi). In my estimation, that is why these SuperPi times were allowed to be leaked… because it doesn’t truly reveal the performance potential in just about every other scenario.
Here's another tidbit to consider. At 3.00 GHz Current Agena (65nm) Phenoms achieve 1M SuperPi in 27.531 sec and the new Deneb (45nm) Phenoms in 23.547. That's a 14.4% increase in single-thread performance, at the same clock. This will erase and overcome the (approximately 8%) clock-for-clock advantage Yorkfield currently has over Agena.
In other words, clock-for-clock, these Denebs are likely to be as fast as or faster than Yorkfields in most scenarios (outside of SuperPi).
This demonstrates how Bloomfield and derivatives are an absolute must for Intel, rather than a technological luxury.
Let's try to keep things in perspective.
K8 and K10 (and apparently K10.5) don't do particularly well in SuperPi, when compared to Conroe/Kentsfield or Wolfdale/Yorkfield. This is perhaps the worst possible way to compare the Green and Blue teams.
For example, it only takes a Wolfdale/Yorkfield operating at 2.40 GHz to achieve 1M SuperPi in approximately 20 seconds and it takes a Deneb @ 3.44 GHz to achieve the same time. A Deneb @ 3.44 GHz would decimate a Wolfdale/Yorkfield @ 2.40 GHz in virtually every single benchmark or application (other than SuperPi). In my estimation, that is why these SuperPi times were allowed to be leaked… because it doesn’t truly reveal the performance potential in just about every other scenario.
Here's another tidbit to consider. At 3.00 GHz Current Agena (65nm) Phenoms achieve 1M SuperPi in 27.531 sec and the new Deneb (45nm) Phenoms in 23.547. That's a 14.4% increase in single-thread performance, at the same clock. This will erase and overcome the (approximately 8%) clock-for-clock advantage Yorkfield currently has over Agena.
In other words, clock-for-clock, these Denebs are likely to be as fast as or faster than Yorkfields in most scenarios (outside of SuperPi).
This demonstrates how Bloomfield and derivatives are an absolute must for Intel, rather than a technological luxury.
by: Oliverda;880839
OK, let's try to put a C2D CPU into a Socket 775 board which made between 2004 and 2006. It won't work thanks to Intel's "customer friendly" marketing strategy. :rolleyes:
i was using a nforce 4 sli intel edition with a C2D E6400:rolleyes:
by: newtekie1;880256It doesn't help that the NB and L3 is running at low speeds, just like the shitty, current quads.
It is a guage on how a single one of those cores performs, which we can then use to get an idea on how all 4 will perform. If 1 core performs like crap, adding 3 more crappy performing cores just gives you a quad-core processor that performs like crap compared to other quad-core processors.
If the NB would be jacked up and the L3 ran like cache is supposed to be (full core speed), then superpi time would be fast. Idk wtf their problem is. It's a simple solution and it's not like it can't be done easily.
by: Oliverda;880839Im running a 45nm Q in my 2006 mobo :p ASUS :rockout:
OK, let's try to put a C2D CPU into a Socket 775 board which made between 2004 and 2006. It won't work thanks to Intel's "customer friendly" marketing strategy. :rolleyes:
ohhhh man, I can't wait till they come out. They should be really good, my two cents.
by: Assimilator;880809Whine. Whine. Bitch. Bitch. I'm running Intel because it outperforms AMD by miles, and I'll freely admit that. I'm running Intel because I want the best. If I am such a fanboy as you say I'd still be running AMD and claiming it's better than Intel.
Socket 775 (aka Socket T) was released in 2004.
Socket AM2 was released in 2006.
So Darknova, please stop your whining about Intel's "constant socket changes", it just shows how much of an AMD fanboy you really are.
775 may have been out for 4 odd years, but can you go out and put a brand spanking new 775 chip in a board from the early days of 775? No.
Can you put the latest AM2 chip in an AM2 board from the early days? Yes, sometimes via BIOS update.
no dark you can not, a Phenom will not work on early AM2 boards, it only sees 3 cores i tired it on my ECS Nforce4 board and got it from a few others. Quads are not supported on sevral early chipsets. Nforce4, Exrepess 200, Express 3200, and K8T890 and K8T800
by: candle_86;880970not true support for quads is determined by the manuf they can choose to update the BIOS or not xpress 3200 does support quads as does nforce4 look just cause your cheap ECS choose not to offer support doesn't mean its not supported by others
no dark you can not, a Phenom will not work on early AM2 boards, it only sees 3 cores i tired it on my ECS Nforce4 board and got it from a few others. Quads are not supported on sevral early chipsets. Nforce4, Exrepess 200, Express 3200, and K8T890 and K8T800
by: Darknova;880950That is true, you can't put a brand new processor in a 775 board from 4 years ago.
775 may have been out for 4 odd years, but can you go out and put a brand spanking new 775 chip in a board from the early days of 775? No.
Can you put the latest AM2 chip in an AM2 board from the early days? Yes, sometimes via BIOS update.
However, you can put one in a board from 2006, which is the same time AM2 was released.
by: cdawall;880993Exactly, a lot of the CPU support issues has to do with the manufacture of the board. There is no universal truth. New AM2 processors will not work in all AM2 motherboards. Just like not all 775 processors from 2006 will support the latest Processors. However, my P5B that I bought mid-2006 still supports the latest quad-core processors. So the current 775 socket has been around for pretty much just as long as AM2.
not true support for quads is determined by the manuf they can choose to update the BIOS or not xpress 3200 does support quads as does nforce4 look just cause your cheap ECS choose not to offer support doesn't mean its not supported by others
by: Assimilator;880809Well my name is amdguy, but i'm running intel not only because it is currently faster but because i got a good deal.
Socket 775 (aka Socket T) was released in 2004.
Socket AM2 was released in 2006.
So Darknova, please stop your whining about Intel's "constant socket changes", it just shows how much of an AMD fanboy you really are.
Back on topic, this is what I want to see from AMD. I'm not expecting them to take the performance crown anytime soon, but if they can bring much improved performance to the table and continue to undercut Intel's prices, they should see good adoption of the Denebs.
But now that we've gotten over my name, you have to admit that even though intel has not changed their socket in a while, every time they do a little revision you need to buy a good motherboard to run their "latest cpu's" even though it is socket compatible, call it what you will but i think that's reality, Amd has given people are better upgrade path.
I think this may have a hard time really earning price/performance honestly. $230 right? I guess we'll have to see, I would imagine around that time intel will release the q9650, drop the price of the q9550 to $299 and the q9450 to $230 or so, which will beat this pretty handily. Still nice upgrade for the amd users, big jump in superpi.
idk about you guys but i'm grabbing a AM3 BE/FX CPU, AM2+ board, and a 4870 Graphics card
by: eidairaman1;881017
idk about you guys but i'm grabbing a AM3 BE/FX CPU, AM2+ board, and a 4870 Graphics card
When's AM3 being released? Is it confirmed to work w/ AM2+?
by: Amdguy;881008
Well my name is amdguy, but i'm running intel not only because it is currently faster but because i got a good deal.
But now that we've gotten over my name, you have to admit that even though intel has not changed their socket in a while, every time they do a little revision you need to buy a good motherboard to run their "latest cpu's" even though it is socket compatible, call it what you will but i think that's reality, Amd has given people are better upgrade path.
I don't know if that's necessarily intel's doing. The p35s have been around for a while, they just have needed bios updates and revisions to run the 45nm's. AMD has released new chipsets to do the latest and greatest better too, it's just improvement. I like amd's approach to multi-card gaming much better though, as they require much less cash, which is already going to have to go to buying multiple cards.
ha ha another Green vs Blue fight thread, nothing really constructive.
Whatever people say fast slow dumb etc, can't beat a Local Frys sale of ECS + X2 4800 for $70. Thats what a stupid celeron + ecs mobo go normally. 4800 can do lots and lots of work way better than that celeron. That is called best bang for buck. Who cares if you walk around in the street naked with your stupid intel performance crown:D (because you don't have money to buy other necessary things)
Whatever people say fast slow dumb etc, can't beat a Local Frys sale of ECS + X2 4800 for $70. Thats what a stupid celeron + ecs mobo go normally. 4800 can do lots and lots of work way better than that celeron. That is called best bang for buck. Who cares if you walk around in the street naked with your stupid intel performance crown:D (because you don't have money to buy other necessary things)
by: suraswami;881028That's a silly argument, I won't take the time to counter it, just think a little more. Is amd green, I've thought of them as red for some reason........:laugh:
ha ha another Green vs Blue fight thread, nothing really constructive.
Whatever people say fast slow dumb etc, can't beat a Local Frys sale of ECS + X2 4800 for $70. Thats what a stupid celeron + ecs mobo go normally. 4800 can do lots and lots of work way better than that celeron. That is called best bang for buck. Who cares if you walk around in the street naked with your stupid intel performance crown:D (because you don't have money to buy other necessary things)
by: farlex85;881031Thats very true. They have be owned by Red now a days.
That's a silly argument, I won't take the time to counter it, just think a little more. Is amd green, I've thought of them as red for some reason........:laugh:
by: suraswami;881028Meh, tiger runs XFX 610i boards with E1200 combos all the time for right around the same price. And unlike the ECS POS, the XFX 610i can actually overclock the CPU with some decent voltage controls, and has a lifetime warranty.
Whatever people say fast slow dumb etc, can't beat a Local Frys sale of ECS + X2 4800 for $70. Thats what a stupid celeron + ecs mobo go normally. 4800 can do lots and lots of work way better than that celeron. That is called best bang for buck. Who cares if you walk around in the street naked with your stupid intel performance crown:D (because you don't have money to buy other necessary things)
by: Amdguy;881008No, you don't have to buy a good motherboard every time they do a little revision. My P5B was bought in 2006, and it was no where near the high end when I bought it, I think I got it for under $150 at the time, and it support everything up through the 45nm quads.
Well my name is amdguy, but i'm running intel not only because it is currently faster but because i got a good deal.
But now that we've gotten over my name, you have to admit that even though intel has not changed their socket in a while, every time they do a little revision you need to buy a good motherboard to run their "latest cpu's" even though it is socket compatible, call it what you will but i think that's reality, Amd has given people are better upgrade path.
The only major change to the socket was done when the Pentium Ds were released. Most boards after that should support all the processors through the 45nm processors as long as the chipset supported it, and
These seem to be good processors, especially if they are introduced at the same price as the current Phenoms.
Hopefully there will also be a higher end Phenom FX's with this generation. With a full speed HT Link (3.2GHz Core, 2.6GHz HT). Wouldn't make it a top of the line CPU (Intel Nehalem will be faster), but at ~$300 it would be hard to beat for that price.
Hopefully there will also be a higher end Phenom FX's with this generation. With a full speed HT Link (3.2GHz Core, 2.6GHz HT). Wouldn't make it a top of the line CPU (Intel Nehalem will be faster), but at ~$300 it would be hard to beat for that price.
by: Wayward;880217Another word for "Drab"? Denreb, the drab CPU! :p although, I dont think 20s @ 3.4GHz is too bad, assuming 3.4GHz is going to be the norm OC for them.
Denreb? :laugh:
by: DaedalusHelios;880449Well...perhaps read the rest of the two posts by myself and the other guy. He stated that the Dual Core processors from AMD are still very good (they are) so I also stated that the Phenom on 2 cores is significantly faster than those Dual cores which would mean that you should notice the Phenom is also good.
So you would pay the price for a quad, and have to compare it to the same companies old tech, to make it look good, rather than compare it to the opposing companies product line?
~Largest run-on sentence in the world^^^^
Now then...before making dumb comments like that read the rest not just a single line. And what exactly do you compare the new Intel processors to...newer ones? No you compare it to older ones.:shadedshu
While we're at it...define "crap" when it comes to performance. Because something is not faster than something else does that make it crap? What do you drive because with that statement I'll have to consider it crap. Just because something MAY not be as quick doesn't make it crap, it's just slower. Last time I checked all of these processors from both camps are very very fast just maybe not as fast as you want them, but I guess if that was true you made sure you bought the fastest thing out there...oh wait nevermind.
Speed is a very relative term people should get used to it.
Have you ever got mad because you had to sit and wait for 3 seconds longer for a program to load or lost 7-10 fps in a game when running at 75fps ...prolly not
K
Btw, that was a really long run on sentence though :roll:
by: suraswami;881028
ha ha another Green vs Blue fight thread, nothing really constructive.
Whatever people say fast slow dumb etc, can't beat a Local Frys sale of ECS + X2 4800 for $70. Thats what a stupid celeron + ecs mobo go normally. 4800 can do lots and lots of work way better than that celeron. That is called best bang for buck. Who cares if you walk around in the street naked with your stupid intel performance crown:D (because you don't have money to buy other necessary things)
by: farlex85;881031
That's a silly argument, I won't take the time to counter it, just think a little more. Is amd green, I've thought of them as red for some reason........:laugh:
I don't think that's a stupid argument. I think it's not bad actually- not 100% bulletproof but he's got a point.
Poeple may be able to get similar performance from Intel once you overclock the shit out of it- but not everyone sees the point in taking a gamble with overclocking whether it be with frying your kit or you simply got a bad chip. Overclocking is for enthusiasts not the common market. For god's sake I don't get this idea that tech enthusiasts are always promoting to everyone and their grandmother, 'just overclock it.' What a fucking stupid thing to say. Yeah void the warranty, and potentially break the hardware for a performance gain that WILL reduce the life of the chip no matter what you do. A 4800 is more than enough for most people- 90% won't be able to notice the difference between an AMD 4800+ X2 and an E8500 in realword applications unless they actually time how fast things take. We notice because we really care about it and want the best out of our machines. Using arrogant tech enthusiasts' logic is similar to Max power magazine's readers telling everyone they know to pimp out their cars to get max performance and huge exhausts from a car they use to take their kids to school. Think about whats a stupid argument before you apply your bigoted comments.
by: TheGuruStud;880864Ummm...you must be following on a handful (if that) of the Phenoms that are out now because my 3.1Ghz Phenom is faster than your 3.3Ghz 6000+ in nearly every single test you can make up even if I'm running on only two cores. And yes I've done the testing using only two of my four cores, read my thread you'll see the difference. Even people with 3.5-3.6Ghz 6400+ systems realize that if the current Phenom was clocked at 3.2Ghz regularly it would beat the 6400+ in every single test very significantly. If your 6000+ and my Phenom were at the exact same clock (regardless of the clock) I'd leave you for dead.
It doesn't help that the NB and L3 is running at low speeds, just like the shitty, current quads.
If the NB would be jacked up and the L3 ran like cache is supposed to be (full core speed), then superpi time would be fast. Idk wtf their problem is. It's a simple solution and it's not like it can't be done easily.
No offense, but you definately didn't do your research when you made the claim "shitty current quads". And what do you consider low speeds for the Northbridge, yes 1.8Ghz isn't the fastest of all the Phenoms (which makes this even better for the results) but that doesn't make it slow. Also remember on a Phenom we can just turn our speeds up because we have control of all the cpu parameters unlike the Athlon lineup (and yes I've owned those too).
No offense to anyone in this thread but there is only a handful of responses that should even still be listed here as legit responses to the thread, the rest should be deleted or the thread should be locked because it seems as though 90% of the people posting here are only here to throw dirt as opposed to make legit comments useful to anyone.
K
by: theonetruewill;881124
Poeple may be able to get similar performance from Intel once you overclock the shit out of it- but not everyone sees the point in taking a gamble with overclocking whether it be with frying your kit or you simply got a bad chip. Overclocking is for enthusiasts not the common market. For god's sake I don't get this idea that tech enthusiasts are always promoting to everyone and their grandmother, 'just overclock it.' What a fucking stupid thing to say. Yeah void the warranty, and potentially break the hardware for a performance gain that WILL reduce the lif